The Effects of Incentive Framing on Performance Decrements for Large Monetary Outcomes: Behavioral and Neural Mechanisms

1Department of Biomedical Engineering, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and 2Kennedy Krieger Institute, Baltimore, Maryland 21205, 3Division of Biology and Biological Engineering, 4Computation and Neural Systems, and

Article Figures & Data

Figures

The incentive-based motor task. At the beginning of each trial, participants were presented with the incentive (e.g., Win $50, Lose $50) for which they were playing. During incentive presentation, to initiate the motor task, participants placed their white hand cursor in the start position (×) for a random amount of time (2–5 s). During the task, a target (□) appeared that was registered to a position 20 cm distal from the start. To successfully achieve the task, participants had to place their hand cursor and a mass cursor into the target within 2 s, while achieving a final velocity <0.02 m/s. At the end of the trial, they were shown a message indicating the outcome of their performance (e.g., “You Won” or “You Lost”). For gain trials, participants were to successfully perform the task for the possibility of winning an amount of money; if they were unsuccessful, they lost nothing. For loss trials, participants were to successfully achieve the task to avoid losing an amount of money; if they were unsuccessful, there was the possibility they would lose the amount presented on that trial. In the case that a participant successfully placed the spring mass in the target, a positive message was displayed (“You Won $50” or “You Won”); otherwise, the participant was informed of her negative outcome (“You Lost” or “You Lost $50”).

Behavioral performance during scanning. A, Grouping participants by the extent of their loss aversion (median split), we found that those with low loss aversion had decremented performance when presented with large potential losses and increased performance for increased potential gains. Conversely, those with high loss aversion had decremented performance when presented with large potential gains and increased performance for increased potential losses. The significance levels shown are for planned comparisons relative to performance at the middle range of incentives (*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01). Error bars denote SEM. B, The correlation between behavioral loss aversion for each participant and their difference in performance between the $100 loss and gain conditions.

fMRI results. A, A common region of ventral striatum was implicated during execution of the motor task in the loss and gain conditions (significant at p < 0.05, small-volume corrected in an a priori ventral striatum ROI). B, Activity in the ventral striatum was negatively correlated with the magnitude of incentive at the time of the motor task. This pattern of activation held for both the loss and gain conditions. C, At the time of incentive presentation, plots of the correlations between the difference in neural sensitivity between the loss and gain conditions and the difference in performance between the $100 loss and gain conditions (left) and behavioral loss aversion (right). D, At the time of the motor task, plots of the correlations between the difference in neural sensitivity between the loss and gain conditions and the difference in performance between the $100 loss and gain conditions (left) and behavioral loss aversion (right).

PPI. A, B, Functional coupling between the ventral striatum and premotor cortex was significantly decreased during large incentive trials (for both gains and losses) in which performance was diminished. C, Plots of correlations between participants' loss aversion and their difference in ventral striatum–premotor coupling between the loss and gain conditions. Participants with low loss aversion had decreased ventral striatum–motor coupling in the loss condition compared with the gain condition; those with high loss aversion had decreased ventral striatum–premotor coupling in the gain condition compared with the loss condition.

↵At the time of the motor task, no regions showed increasing activity for increasing prospective gains. Statistically significant activations are those found in a priori regions of interest (familywise error, *p < 0.05) and those regions that survive whole-brain correction for multiple comparisons (at *p < 0.05). Laterality - right (R); left (L); central (C).

↵At the time of the motor task, no regions showed increasing activity for increasing prospective losses. Statistically significant activations are those found in a priori regions of interest (familywise error, *p < 0.05) and those regions that survive whole-brain correction for multiple comparisons (at *p < 0.05). Laterality - right (R); left (L); central (C).